On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:46:33PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 11:36:26AM -0400, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > But surely to be non-random we need an equal number of 1 and 0 bits, > > making 15 the clear choice. > > I don't know man.
I concur. Consider running FreeBSD to HP48; 15 would max out entire nibble, leading to predictability and risk of overflow attacks. > First off, '7' could not be chosen at random. I'm convinced factors like > amount of CPUs (and their speed), RAM etc. played a huge factor here. > > Now that everything is faster these days, one could ponder returning > '8'. OTOH, eight also fits two elementary units (trits) on trinary machines, which might allow for certain micro-optimizations when you need strong flow of non- random numbers. > We can add an ioctl to control this. > > Opinions? To stay portable, very likely, yes. ./danfe _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
